Follow Intellectual Takeout

Send Freedom Viral

Submitted by jim on Fri, 2010-11-12 15:00

At Intellectual Takeout, we think it's about time freedom went viral.

Before our generation is the opportunity to embrace freedom, to unleash each individual's potential, and to have a prosperous future. And yet it seems that almost everyone running our cities, states, and federal government is intent on destroying freedom and burying us in debt to pay for it.

If you, like us, believe that freedom is the better way forward, you need to change the environment you are in. We're not asking you to ditch school or leave your job for the cause, but simply to educate those around you.

At the top of nearly every page on the site, you will see the opportunity to share what you're reading or viewing:

Through the "Share" buttons you can log in to almost any social media site out there in order to post information and to spread the ideas of freedom.

Every time you see something you like on this site, blast it out to your friends, family, coworkers, and classmates through e-mail, instant messaging, Facebook, Twitter, your blog, and any other social media network you use. To learn more about using social media, go here.

For the first time in human history, each one of us has the opportunity to go around the establishment to communicate with friends, family, associates, and total strangers. In this world, it's the power of our ideas and our ability to communicate them that matters. If you want to be free, if you want to take back your future, you have no better opportunity than now. Send freedom viral!

More About This Topic...

If only one child in a class fails a test, should the teacher assign failing grades to everyone? That's exactly how the American Lung Association (ALA) assigns air quality grades to America's cities and counties in its annual State of the Air report....

"The Clean Air Act is a law with a 40-year track record of cutting dangerous pollution to protect human health and the environment. Administered by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), this legislation has prevented more than 400,000 premature deaths and hundreds of millions of cases of respiratory and cardiovascular disease."

If the EPA were to administer the Clean Air Act as written with respect to greenhouse gases, then it would need to hire 230,000 more staff and spend $21 billion annually to deal with the deluge of paperwork that would result.

Even as public health authorities and environmental activists become more strident in raising health alarms, evidence continues to mount that air pollution at contemporary low levels is causing little or no harm, even in the most polluted areas of the country.

Given our country’s reliance on fossil fuels for power production and the increase in vehicle use, it is perhaps not surprising that many people believe that air quality in the United States has declined in recent years.

This month, I will document the evidence that even air pollution levels far higher than any we experience in the United States are perfectly safe, and that the nation's air does not cause adverse health effects.

This article will try to answer these questions by looking at air quality and demographic data from California, a state with a diverse population and with a significant amount of air pollution regulation.

This article questions the wisdom of regulating fuel standards, and the logic that increased fuel efficiency translates into reduced demand for oil. It may sound strange, but it's an interesting thought.

Yesterday marked the 40th birthday of the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Clean Air Act (CAA), and environmentalists celebrated by reminding us how beneficial the regulation has been at improving air quality in the U.S.

The Environmental Protection Agency has proposed a dramatic tightening of air-quality standards in an attempt to reduce deaths and illness from air pollution. The regulations already have ignited public controversy.

With Earth Day about a month away, Americans tell Gallup they worry the most about several water-related risks and issues among nine major environmental issues. They worry least about global warming and loss of open spaces.

Exhibit 1. Primary Central Estimates of direct benefits and direct costs for the 2000, 2010, and 2020 study target years. (In billions of 2006 dollars). The graph shows the extent to which benefits exceed costs throughout the study period.

Figure 1 shows the average number of days per year exceeding the federal eight-hour ozone standard in the six California counties with the highest ozone levels, and in the other forty-nine states plus the District of Columbia.

"The prospects for a Congressional climate change bill have lessened since the Copenhagen summit. If the legislative process fails, EPA may have a number of options available under the existing Clean Air Act to create a cap-and-trade program...."

Air Quality in America shows in detail how activists have distorted the record on air pollution and offers an alternative analysis of air pollution levels, trends, and prospects in metropolitan areas across the United States.

"Journalists and environmentalists erroneously claim more than half the country has 'some of the worst air pollution,' when in fact the worst areas of California stand head and shoulders above all others."

This study analyzes the effectiveness of the 1990 market-based amendments to the CAA and finds the cap-and-trade programs effectively protect the environment at a significant cost savings over the traditional command-and-control approach.

"...EPA greatly overestimated the net benefits of the Clean Air Act amendments. The agency deliberately neglected the cost of complying with a well-known, and expensive requirement of the act and ignored its own scientific advisory board’s advice...."

The purpose of this PERC Policy Series paper is to show, by examining specific cases in American and English history, that strong legal traditions enabled ordinary citizens to protect their air, land, and water, often against politically potent parties.

The EPA's CAA study actually represents a milestone in bureaucratic propaganda. "Like junk science in a courtroom, the study seemingly attempts to obtain the largest possible benefit figure rather than to come as close as possible to the truth.﻿"

"This paper presents new evidence on the effects of these regulatory interventions by using the 1970 and 1977 Clean Air Act Amendments' division of counties into 'high' and 'low' regulation categories."

Discussion about proposed EPA regulations on auto emissions, emissions standards state to state, and the pros and cons of regulating and taxing to further environmental goals. Skip to the nine minute mark.

This podcast by a scholar at the Cato Institute advocates repealing the CAFE standards. Taylor says that there is no good economic argument to have the CAFE standards and that they substitute political judgment for economic judgments made by consumers. He also states that since the CAFE standards only deal with fuel efficiency, they discount the amount of pollutant...

"Witnesses testified about a proposed emission rule by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The rule, known as the Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) for utilities would set new emission standards for coal and oil-fired electricity generation plants. They focused on the probable impact of the rule on the economy, businesses, and job growth."

"This video exposes yet another of Obama's radical leftist appointments, EPA head Lisa Jackson. From indoctrination of our youth through the Boy's and Girl's Clubs of America, to fear mongering in a speech to LULAC, to playing the race card in front of BIG (Blacks in Government), Jackson covers all the Environmental Justice bases."

"In economic activity, there are sometimes 'externalities' or spillover effects to other people not involved in the original exchange. Positive externalities result in beneficial outcomes for others, but negative externalities impose costs on others. Prof. Sean Mullholland at Stonehill College addresses a classic example of a negative externality, pollution, and describes three possible...

In this video clip, Senator Rand Paul describes how air pollution has actually declined in recent years despite reports to the contrary. Paul believes America can have a clean atmosphere without implementing more government environmental regulation.

My administration, under the leadership of EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson, has taken some of the strongest actions since the enactment of the Clean Air Act four decades ago to protect our environment and the health of our families from air pollution.

We have now reached the point where our factories and our automobiles, our furnaces and our municipal dumps are spewing more than 150 million tons of pollutants annually into the air that we breathe-almost one-half million tons a day.

I AM GLAD to approve this legislation which is to be known as the Clean Air Act. It will make possible a national effort to control air pollution, a serious and growing threat to both our health and our safety.

Thank you for inviting me to testify about Chairman Upton’s draft bill to eliminate portions of the Clean Air Act, the landmark law that all American children and adults rely on to protect them from harmful air pollution.

Through this Petition, the Center for Biological Diversity and 350.org request that the
EPA do what the science dictates and the law requires: take necessary regulatory action to control greenhouse gas emissions.

Since day one, under President Obama’s leadership, EPA has worked to ensure health protections for the American people, and has made tremendous progress to ensure that Clean Air Act standards protect all Americans....

I am here today to discuss litigation the State of Texas has filed against the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ('EPA') and explain why the EPA's regulation of greenhouse gases ('GHGs') violates the Clean Air Act.

Congress should amend the CAA so that Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is not authorized to regulate GHGs for climate change purposes. Concerns about GHG emissions and climate change should be addressed through a different path.

Under the Clean Air Amendments of 1970 ... the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is required to set 'ambient air' quality standards which, in the EPA's judgment, are 'requisite to protect the public health....

The Federal Clean Air Act of 1970 is widely seen as a revolutionary legal response to the failures of the earlier common law regime, which had governed air pollution in the United States for more than a century.

In this provocative new book, Bruce Yandle explores the relationship between common law and environmental protection, and he discusses how people can limit environmental impact while living in a world of common access.

This book boldly confronts specific environmental laws, asking whether they were motivated by environmental concerns, whether they achieve their goals, whether they are cost-effective - and ... whether they ... generate perverse results.

A current guide to one of the most complicated and extensive pieces of environmental legislation ever written, this broad and balanced perpective to the statute that brings together the experience of over two dozen private and public sector.

Since 1970, when the Clean Air Act was passed and the Environmental Protection Agency was created, the primary means for addressing environmental problems in the U.S. has been through comprehensive federal statutes and detailed regulations.

Since 1985, the Center for Clean Air Policy (CCAP) has been a recognized world leader in climate and air quality policy and is the only independent, nonprofit think tank working exclusively on those issues at the local, U.S. national and international levels.